REL 245: Honors History of Religions of America

Tag Archives: bible

Darren Aronofsky’s new movie Noah is one of the biggest movies of this year so far, and is the latest in the line of films about the Old Testament hero. Each incarnation of the story has its own feel and personality, and puts forth the narrative through a unique social lens.

For instance, Reverend Otis Moss III’s article entitled “A Biblical Review of Noah”, Moss states that Aronofosky’s Noah is “daring, powerful, and imaginative”, but also that it “expands the story” of the Bible. (Moss) Noah is more real than biblical, and the story of the Great Flood is a much more human.

“The filmmaker weaves a story more in line with St. Augustine’s struggle and Elie Wiesel’s crisis of faith. Noah demands the audience to think and feel. We are forced to look at the film with head and heart.” (Moss)

Our class has spent the last few weeks reading Edward Blum and Paul Harvey’s book The Color of Christ, which describes and evaluates different depictions of Jesus throughout American history, especially in terms of race. We also spent time looking at different representations of Jesus throughout the history of film. We watched bits and pieces of movies like “Passion of the Christ”, “Son of God”, “Godspell”, and “The Last Temptation of Christ”, and evaluated the meaning(s) behind their depictions of Christ. Dr. Altman then asked us a thought-provoking question: which Jesus was our favorite? As far as Noah is concerned, I would like to use a similar thought process to examine a character who has been re-invented through film almost as many times as Jesus.

This is the “Wizard of Oz” meets “All Quiet on the Western Front” version of Noah. The film begins with the story of World War I, and the characters in the story are developed in the narrative of the days leading up to and during the war. When a comparison is made between the “flood” of blood in World War one and Noah, the frame of the film shifts, and the characters take on different identities (see Wizard of Oz reference) in the time of the Great Flood. I think that the anachronistic use of the biblical story is similarly used in Upton Sinclair’s They Call me Carpenter: A Tale of the Second Coming, which Blum cites in The Color of Christ. Sinclair’s “Carpenter” combines the story and ideology of Jesus with the racial tension of 1920’s Los Angeles. Similarly, “Noah’s Ark” synthesizes the violence and terror of World War I with the wrath of God in the story of Noah. George O’Brien’s more serious, stoic (and uncomfortably romantic) Noah embodies the drama of the silent movie era, and portrays the helplessness of both a soldier and a sheperd of the Great Flood.

This is the first instance I could find where “bearded Noah” shows up. This TV miniseries on NBC was very highly rated (the second of the three parts set a one-night ratings record that wasn’t reached again until 2004) but was shamed critically, and is banned in Malaysia. Jon Voight’s down-home Noah was blended into the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah by the creative team, and the movie’s creative expansion of the story embodies what Blum refers to as the “deity in the digital age”. In this chapter, Blum describes the debate over Jesus’s race in the Campus Crusade film Jesus (1979). Blum makes the point that at in terms of the white, American-accented Jesus Campus Crusade chose to use, “Biblical or geographical accuracy, it appeared, was less vital than familiarity.” (Blum 257) The 1999 Noah movie continued the “white noah” narrative, which is maybe even more confusing (and, some would say, arbitrary) than that of the coloration of Jesus. Why is Noah always white? Who made the casting decision to put the Midnight Cowboy into the Old Testament

Two things: I know that his name in the movie isn’t Noah, and the movie itself was awful. However, this modern depiction of the Noah story, regardless of how ridiculous it was, Steve Carell builds an ark, and his commitment to God demonstrates a choice between the sacred and the profane. Similar to the Tony Danza Noah, (which regrettably isn’t featured and regrettably is also terrible) Steve Carell’s Evan Baxter/Noah is a man called out of his suburban life by God to build an ark for an impending flood. Here is a situation where the protagonists are called to abandon their earthly lives to protect their people from an impending disaster. These stories provide a modern setting for Noah and the perceived distinction between the Durkheimian profane (earthly lives, success) with the sacred (misssion from God, earth-swallowing flood). Also, the director’s name sounds like it came out of the book of Judges.

Steve Carell as Congressman Evan Baxter. Having a beard makes you Noah, right?

I only included this Noah because he sounds like he belongs in How to Train your Dragon. William Wallace Noah isn’t on the screen for very long, but he does tell the entire story of Genesis in about three minutes. That seems like a good way to start a show about the Bible. He is white and has a beard, though. I still can’t figure that out.

Scottish Noah has a beard too. And he really enjoys eating haggis. And playing the bagpipes.

Russell Crowe Noah is exactly what one might expect Russell Crowe Noah to be. Gladiator Noah. He is virile, powerful, and burdened by the power of his task. However, in a modern, politically correct twist, Noah does not hear the voice of God explicitly. The audience instead sees the “nudge of God on Noah’s spirit.” (Moss) I think that this modern, less divine version of the story is what its current audience wants to see. I think that this manly Noah, who is constrained by the limits of humanity as the rest of us, relates directly to how Blum described the making of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. In The Passion, Jesus was “buff and bright”(Blum 261), and seemed to “symbolize America.”

“Instead of the Sunday school tale of the ark and animals, we are given a grownup story of a family struggling to be faithful, obedient, loving, and compassionate, in the face of widespread intolerable evil. The story of Noah has inspired and provoked our consciousness for thousands of years, and a modern artist, Darren Aronofsky, has been possessed by the story once again.” (Moss)

I think this Noah is the way that America would like to see themselves in that situation. Noah is driven by his devotion to his family, and his devotion in building the ark is a reflection of his paternal instinct. He builds an ark, and he looks like an ark-builder. He is human, and he is shown in the movie as being exactly that.

Even if you didn’t want to, you now have an in-depth knowledge of cinematic Noahs and what they represent. I’ll ask the same question that was asked to us: which Noah is your favorite, and why? Which one is the most accurate, and which one speaks to you?

Hollywood is Hell on Earth. This is what some Christians, at least in the South, would have you believe. Many of these people view Hollywood as a place filled with celebrities whose views have long strayed from those of mainstream Americans. A place used as a scapegoat for the “downfall of America.” A place where Christianity is almost nonexistent. A place not to be looked up to in any way. Oh yeah, and that place where all your favorite movies originate.

For years, Christians have complained about the lack of Bible-related films coming out of Hollywood. That is not the case this year. In 2014, there will be four major, religion-themed movies coming to a theater near you: Son of God, Noah, Heaven Is for Real, and Exodus. One would think Christians might be satisfied with so many of these films being released soon, but that is not exactly the case. Seemingly every time a Bible-related film hits theaters, there are numerous religious organizations lining up to criticize the storyline or accuracy of the movie. Paramount, the studio releasing Noah, recently announced that the following clarification would be included with the film:

The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis.

I mean, it’s not like Hollywood has a track record of embellishing the narrative of a “based on true events” movie. Dr. Jerry Johnson, President of the NRB, summarizes the Christian viewpoint in his article about Noah as, “If the world made it, we are against it, and can provide the list to tell you why.” Instead of continually trying to pick a fight with Hollywood, Christians ought to embrace the fact that the film industry is spending millions of dollars to essentially tell the story of the Jesus and the Bible.

In a similar article, Phil Cooke makes the case for why Christians should support the movie Noah, and other comparable movies. For starters, the story of Noah written in the Bible is fairly short. As with many parts of the Bible, this story leaves many blanks unfilled and leaves the imagination with room to wander. This means that in order to create a feature film, some creative freedom must be left to the writers and producers. This does not discount the entire story as worthless, though. Instead, this introduces a new viewpoint, perhaps never considered by the person watching. Furthermore, I know it may be hard for some to fathom, but there are a seemingly infinite number of interpretations of the Bible. This could be embraced as a way to promote an open dialogue about Christ and the many forms that He takes in different cultures.

These movies are not intended to replace the Bible. Instead of complaining about trivial details, Christians should look to use these movies as a facilitator for nonbelievers. The art of filmmaking has the power to reach an audience untouched by the Christian community. These movies could lead to someone picking up a Bible for the first time in their lives. And, in the end, is that not what all Christians want?

As time changes, so does religion. As new questions are asked, many people search for answers through Christ. However, the “same” Christ, along with his teachings, can be viewed, imagined, and interpreted with vast differences, causing immense friction. Throughout American history, religion and Jesus have played a large role on both sides of wars and debates, each side claiming Christ as an advocate for their actions. As presented in The Color of Christ by Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey, during the Civil War, the voices of white supremacy claimed that the Golden Rule “only applied within one’s own race” and that it “should take into account status, power, and position.” The slaves and abolitionists, however, believed that it applied to all men and that, according to Christian religion, everyone should love their neighbors as themselves. No matter what the disagreement, having Christ and the Bible as support for opposing sides creates a lot of disagreement and a dynamic Christ, raising a lot of questions about the true meaning of Christianity.

In singer/songwriter Noah Gundersen’s song “Jesus, Jesus” (cleanest version), a lot of modern confusion in the religious world is brought to light. For example, Gundersen questions certain Christian claims about judgment of others. He sings, “If all the heathens burn in hell, do all their children burn as well? What about the Muslims, and the gays, and the unwed mothers?” Matters regarding Muslims (especially in relation to the War on Terror) and homosexuality are modern topics in which religious interpretation plays a huge role. If one views Christ as a lover of all men and the Golden Rule as applicable to everyone, it seems as though these issues wouldn’t be issues at all. However, just as there was in the Civil War, there are opposing sides to each topic, along with substantial biblical claims gathered in support, causing tension and often times uncertainty among Christians.

When it comes to religion in war, it’s presence in the War on Terror reaches far beyond the United States borders. In the Civil War, the religious difference was merely in opposing views of Christ and Christianity in America. However, the Golden Rule in regards to the War on Terror deals not only with religious difference in America, but racial and religious difference with another country. So how does an American Christian interpret the Golden Rule in this situation? Does the Golden Rule only apply to one’s own people, one’s own religion? Or does doing unto others as they would to do unto you apply to everyone regardless of their actions, ethnicity, and belief system? In “Religious fundamentalism in the ‘War on Terror,’” Murtaza Hussain states that Chris Kyle, author of American Sniper, calls Iraqis “savages”, claiming that “the world is a better place without [them] taking American lives” and that he wished he had killed more. His reasoning for wanting to kill Iraqis is that they have killed so many Americans. As someone who “was deeply religious and saw the Iraq War through that prism,” the Golden Rule as the abolitionists during the Civil War had viewed it, is contradicted in his reasoning. If he is appalled by the Iraqis killing of Americans, killing the Iraqis is not treating them as he would like him and his fellow Americans to be treated. Kyle’s Christianity must take on a different shape for him, one that he believes is its true meaning and that advocates his actions.

In relation to the topic of other religions, Deuteronomy 13: 6-10 claims that anyone who entices you away from the Lord to serve other gods shall be killed. Perhaps passages like these are behind certain people’s condemnation of other religious beleifs. But some would say it is contradictory to and raises questions about other parts of Christianity, like loving your neighbor as yourself. But, then again, what defines a “neighbor”? It also raises the question of whether or not others, Muslims for example, are essentially worshipping the “same” god as Christians, but that is another topic entirely. This theme of contradiction, though, is also prevalent in the debate over homosexuality as a sin. In a clip of The West Wing, Dr. Jacobs states that the Bible (Leviticus 18:22) calls homosexuality an abomination. Her literal interpretation of the Bible leads her to believe that this is true. However, the President presents her with many contradictions by recalling other bible passages that are not followed literally in modern day. For example, one passage claims that people should be burned for wearing garments made of two different threads. While the clip takes an obvious side of the debate, I am using it in an objective sense, to raise the undeniable issue of contradiction in interpretation. Here, not only is there contradiction in the sense that some people interpret the Bible literally while others do not, but there is also contradiction within each interpretation as well. The lines become extremely blurred.

As time progresses, religion is molded in the face of modernity and the blurred lines that come with it. As new conflicts and questions arise, Christ and Christianity begin to take new, different, and often opposing shapes. But, to many, there is not a definite shape, only confusion. And to those people, people questioning Christianity like Gundersen, it seems that the only way to understand what it’s all about is to meet with Jesus for coffee.